The Book of Mormon... have you read it?

[AtticusFinch]

To assume that Joseph Smith wrote the book would be mistaken. First, Joseph Smith had no time to write such a book. Second, no one ever saw him with a manuscript in hand. And if you know just how he lived then and in what kind of home, you would see that he could not hide such a project. Third, he was not known to be hanging out in stores that sold paper or feathered pens. This is not a book that one can just sit down and write on paper, with rough drafts etc and not be seen.

Actually, he had plenty of time from the time he first claims to have seen the plates until he came up with the book.

 

[AtticusFinch]

And yet, the book of mormon and the bible have led many human beings to lead good and holy lives. So much for garbage.

Hmmmm…if that was the standard for Scripture, then the writings of the Bahai should be considered Scripture. There are many from Islam who lead very good and holy lives reading the Koran…

So?

 

[AtticusFinch]

Yes. I have read the Book of Mormon several times. One of the first things that struck me is that Joseph, an uneducated American fellow in the early 1800s and translating from Reformed Egyptian, would use the same language and phrasing and words as very educated Britains in the 1600s translating from Greek and Hebrew. Hmmmmm

I also found it almost humorous that huge chunks of the Bible were lifted and inserted into the book of mormon

I also found it odd that, according to some accounts, Joseph was not allowed to turn the page to translate more until the page he was working was perfect…yet we find many glaring errors…

But yes, I have read the Book of Mormon several times.

 

[Garland]

TheosisM, oh my another brain bigger than mine, oh well. Actually the christian new testament is a product of the Holy Spirit and the Catholic Church. It was put together as such in 397 as you say and was put in place as the fullness of the christian scripture. This was affirmed in 419 also, reaffirmed by the council of Florence , 1442 under Pope Eugenius IV, and the council of Trent, 1546. These decrees of the Catholic church are the means by which Almighty God chose to hand down his written word. The Church made the Bible and it is her book. She alone has the right to say what is added or taken away. She has the authority to say what is the word of God and what is the word of man. The authorities responsible for the closing of the cannon of Holy Scripture were the councils of Hippo and of Carthage in the fourth century, under the influence of St Augustine, and Popes Innocent I in 405 and Gelasius, 494, both issued list of Sacred Scripture identical to those fixed by the councils. From that date all through the centuries this has been the"Christians Bible". The Church has never admitted any other and the Council of Florence in the fifteenth century, the Council of Trent in the 16th century, and Vatican I in the 19th renewed her anathemas against all who would dispute or deny or add to. this canon. So to take away or add to this book the bible] is to take away from joy and add to your torment.
I still say after reading and rereading the mormon added scriptures, P.T. Barnum was right. GARBAGE IN GARBAGE OUT. Blessings. Garland

 

[TheosisM]

TheosisM, oh my another brain bigger than mine, oh well. Actually the christian new testament is a product of the Holy Spirit and the Catholic Church. It was put together as such in 397 as you say and was put in place as the fullness of the christian scripture. This was affirmed in 419 also, reaffirmed by the council of Florence , 1442 under Pope Eugenius IV, and the council of Trent, 1546. These decrees of the Catholic church are the means by which Almighty God chose to hand down his written word. The Church made the Bible and it is her book. She alone has the right to say what is added or taken away. She has the authority to say what is the word of God and what is the word of man. The authorities responsible for the closing of the cannon of Holy Scripture were the councils of Hippo and of Carthage in the fourth century, under the influence of St Augustine, and Popes Innocent I in 405 and Gelasius, 494, both issued list of Sacred Scripture identical to those fixed by the councils. From that date all through the centuries this has been the"Christians Bible". The Church has never admitted any other and the Council of Florence in the fifteenth century, the Council of Trent in the 16th century, and Vatican I in the 19th renewed her anathemas against all who would dispute or deny or add to. this canon. So to take away or add to this book the bible] is to take away from joy and add to your torment.

The point is that you were interpreting Revelation 22:18-19 as saying that one cannot add to or take away from the Bible, and that the LDS scriptures are adding to the Bible. The problem with this interpretation, as I already said and demonstrated using a Catholic apologetic source (New Advent), is that such an interpretation (used by Fundamentalists to criticize Sacred Tradition as an “addition” to the Bible) ignores the fact that “The Bible” did not exist when that verse was written. “This book” is not the Bible (as New Advent states), but the Book of Revelation. Therefore, this is not a valid argument against the Book of Mormon (nor is it a valid argument against Sacred Tradition).

 

[Michael_Francis]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
***Keep the discussion civil or expect citations and additional Moderator intervention. ***

 

[bluelake]

We answered it, sir.

You just didn’t like the answer. I’m sorry about that, but that’s the truth.

Scripture, ALL scripture, is ‘useful for instruction.’ The bible is a collection of books, including two sub collections, the OT and the NT. We separate the Bible and the Book of Mormon EXACTLY the way you separate the OT and the NT—books of scripture separated by classification, not by importance. The OT is about God’s dealing with His children before Christ, and the NT is about His dealings with His children during and after Christ’s death. The Book of Mormon is about His dealings with His children in the Americas. The Doctrine and Covenants is about His dealings with His children in more modern times. The Pearl of Great Price is a small collection of scriptures about His dealings with two of His greatest prophets. They should probably be put in the OT, but hey, I don’t suppose you guys would like that much.

We publish these volumes separately…but we also publish them as one volume of scripture, where they all dwell together between one cover, just as the OT and the NT do in the bible. (though I have seen plenty of copies of just the OT or the NT).

To US, and this is the important thing, sir, what WE think about this (since after all you are insisting that we be the ones to make this ludicrous choice) it IS just like choosing between Mathew and John, or letters from Peter or Paul.

You are requiring that we make an impossible choice. We have told you so, and told you why. If you want to continue to crow about somehow ‘winning’ something, be my guest, but you will look rather silly.

There is an old fable about how the hands, head and feet of the body got to grumbling about how much work they had to do, where the stomach and the liver just sat there: they didn’t have to till the soil, or walk behind the plow, or think about how to feed a family; they just sat there and received the food that was earned so dearly by the rest of the body parts. So, one day they decided to get rid of the stomach and liver; after all, they were just dead weights, right?

As the body lay dying, they discovered too late that everything in the body has a part to play,and attempting to choose between the parts will kill the whole.

Scripture is like that. I know that you don’t believe in the BOM, but WE do. So I would never be stupid enough to ask you seriously to choose between Mathew and Mark, except as an illustration of why your insistence that WE choose is so idiotic.

Take that final answer and…do something with it.

Or not.

The Book of Mormon doesn’t line up with the word of God, The Bible.
The founder, Joseph Smith started this cult, circa, 1830
He also had several wives.
Just think ladies, Mormon women also have ‘spirit children’ in one of three levels of heavens. These spirit children are born to Mormon women today.
It’s been a while since I’ve discussed this stange cult.
We really should pray for them. Most are very nice people.

bluelake

 

[AtticusFinch]

Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary (English dictionary):

“ADIEU’, Adu’.
Farewell; an expression of kind wishes at the parting of friends.
ADIEU’, n. A farewell, or commendation to the care of God; as an everlasting adieu.”

Noah Webster evidently thought the word usage was common enough to include in the English dictionary he prepared for publication. I don’t suppose the French objected to such a very beautiful word being included in an English dictionary and being used by English-speaking people.

This was a very appropriate translation for the expression of parting farewell by Jacob. It is a beautiful, thoughtful expression of loving wishes in parting.

I had no idea Noah Webster was around when the writers of the Book of Mormon were writing their books…

 

[Garland]

TheosisM, I made no mention of Rev22 in my original post, you assumed I was making reference to it, then proceeded to enlighten me on my mistakes. Maybe you should look closer next time and not put words in my mouth. The Churches anatheamas are enough to condemn any adding or subtracting and since it is her book, she alone has the authority to do anything to it. The kjv is itself a testament to the mistakes made by noncatholics when they take the scriptures and twist them to justify there ideas as to what God is and what he has told his people. The writers of it took out books of the old testament and like martin luther, made it fit there “version” of Holy Scripture.
Again, P.T. Barnum was right, the mormon church proves it. Blessings. Garland

 

[TheosisM]

TheosisM, I made no mention of Rev22 in my original post, you assumed I was making reference to it, then proceeded to enlighten me on my mistakes. Maybe you should look closer next time and not put words in my mouth. The Churches anatheamas are enough to condemn any adding or subtracting and since it is her book, she alone has the authority to do anything to it. The kjv is itself a testament to the mistakes made by noncatholics when they take the scriptures and twist them to justify there ideas as to what God is and what he has told his people. The writers of it took out books of the old testament and like martin luther, made it fit there “version” of Holy Scripture.

 Again, P.T. Barnum was right, the mormon church proves it. Blessings. Garland

Garland, in your original post to which I responded (which seems to have been deleted) you stated that the Bible says not to add or take away from “this book”, and interpreted that to mean the Bible, and said that Mormons are disobeying God by adding their scriptures to the Bible. By mentioning adding or taking away from “this book”, if you were not referencing the condemnation found in the Book of Revelation, then please cite the source. Remember that you said that it came from the Bible in your original post.

The fact is, such an interpretation (whether it comes from Revelation, Deuteronomy, or another source) is an erroneous interpretation, and Catholic apologists have written about this in relation to the fundamentalist interpretation, used to denounce Sacred Tradition as being an “addition” to the Bible. The point is that such an interpretation of adding and taking away from “this book” is wrong, since “The Bible” did not exist when Revelation was written for John to have been referring to “The Bible” by “this book”.

 

[TheosisM]

I had no idea Noah Webster was around when the writers of the Book of Mormon were writing their books…

I think that what he is saying is that “adieu” was part of the English language during the time that the Book of Mormon was allegedly translated, therefore there is no anachronism, since the Book was supposedly being translated into English (which borrows words from other languages, modifies them, etc.), and “adieu” was part of the English language by that time.

 

[AtticusFinch]

I think that what he is saying is that “adieu” was part of the English language during the time that the Book of Mormon was allegedly translated, therefore there is no anachronism, since the Book was supposedly being translated into English (which borrows words from other languages, modifies them, etc.), and “adieu” was part of the English language by that time.

Actually, you are correct. So, someone writying the book would use the word. Joseph did. It simply shows that Joseph did not receive it from God, but he did get help from Noah

 

[Answersplease]

Another mistake in the Book of Mormon

Consider the place where John was baptizing, according to John 1:28. Look in different translations and you will see that the KJV says “Bethabara”, while virtually everything else says “Bethany.” To make a long story short, the “church father” Origen (c. 230 AD) changed the text from Bethany to Bethabara, honestly thinking that he was correcting an existing mistake, not making one. The original text of John absolutely, positively, read Bethany, and that is absolutely the name of the place where John was baptizing at that time. But the KJV translators didn’t know about the textual question, and so the KJV reads Bethabara, as I indicated above. This means nothing in the big scheme of things, but in the case of the Book of Mormon it does, because if the Book of Mormon was of divine origin then the prophecy in 1 Nephi 10:9 about where the Christ would be baptized would have mentioned the proper place, even though in Smith’s day it would have seemed wrong since the KJV said something else. But instead Smith copied the “prophecy” out of the KJV and so copied down the wrong place.

Answersplease:

Now I see why the Mormons ignored ricko’s post.

Too difficult to answer?

 

[ParkerD]

Another mistake in the Book of Mormon

Consider the place where John was baptizing, according to John 1:28. Look in different translations and you will see that the KJV says “Bethabara”, while virtually everything else says “Bethany.” To make a long story short, the “church father” Origen (c. 230 AD) changed the text from Bethany to Bethabara, honestly thinking that he was correcting an existing mistake, not making one. The original text of John absolutely, positively, read Bethany, and that is absolutely the name of the place where John was baptizing at that time. But the KJV translators didn’t know about the textual question, and so the KJV reads Bethabara, as I indicated above. This means nothing in the big scheme of things, but in the case of the Book of Mormon it does, because if the Book of Mormon was of divine origin then the prophecy in 1 Nephi 10:9 about where the Christ would be baptized would have mentioned the proper place, even though in Smith’s day it would have seemed wrong since the KJV said something else. But instead Smith copied the “prophecy” out of the KJV and so copied down the wrong place.

Answerplease and Ricko,

Some entries just plain get “missed” or overlooked.

Here is the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the subject of the unknown places of either “Bethany” (not where Lazarus lived) or “Bethabara” (unknown location):

In the text of St. John’s Gospel, i, 28, the author locates the event of Our Lord’s baptism by St. John the Baptist at Bethany across the Jordan and there is herein a celebrated variant. The greatest number of the ancient codices, and those of greatest authority, have Bethania, “Bethany”. This reading is approved by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort, and others. The uncial codices, C2, K, T, U, A, II, many minuscule codices, the Sinaitic Syriac, and Cureton’s Syriac text have Bethabara. This reading was approved by Origen, Jerome, Eusebius, and Chrysostom. Origen, in his commentary on this place of St. John’s Gospel, declares as follows: “We are not ignorant that in nearly all codices Bethany is the reading. But we were persuaded that not Bethany, but Bethabara should be read, when we came to the places that we might observe the footprints of the Lord, of His disciples, and of the prophets. For, as the Evangelist relates, Bethany the home of Lazarus, Mary, and Martha, is distant from Jerusalem fifteen furlongs, while the Jordan is distant one hundred and eighty furlongs. Neither is there a place along the Jordan which has anything in common with the name Bethany. But some say that among the mounds by the Jordan Bethabara is pointed out, where history relates that John baptized”.

Archaeological research has failed to identify either Bethany or Bethabara beyond the Jordan; the conjectures range from the ruins on the bank of the Jordan opposite Mahadet Hadschle less than two miles north of the mouth of the Jordan, even to Mahadet 'Abara, a ford of the Jordan near Bethshean. All things considered, the most probable opinion is that there was a Bethany fifteen furlongs from Jerusalem, and another across the Jordan. The name of this latter may have been a transliteration of a Hebrew phrase meaning “the place of the ship”. Bethany across the Jordan has shared the fate of many other Biblical sites which have disappeared from the earth.

 

[Answersplease]

Well, it would be nice to get a look at the source document and the cypher (I’m quite aware I’ve made this point before, I just felt it deserved repeating). I mean, that is traditionally how “translation” is done. This argument might make a little more sense if this really was a translation. However, he used the Urim and Thummin. I heard a lot of stories as a young person in the LDS, none which came close to matching the very specific description in the Old Testament. In the Bible these were used to cast lots. Did Joseph Smith cast lots to come up with his translation?

I promised myself I wouldn’t engage anymore, but really, this slow pitch was too much to resist.

Michael

Answersplease:

I would like to take a look at the source documents as well, how very convenient that Joseph Smith was’nt allowed to keep the supposed original golden plates of the Book of Mormon.

Also how very convenient that Joseph Smith was “allowed” to use any words that he personally thought would best fit the translation.

I wonder why their supposed god would allow such a supposedly important book to become a mish mash of varying languages and modes of speech.

How did the Greek words “alpha” and “omega” get into the Book of Mormon?

I suppose “alpha” and “omega” were as commonly used in ordinary everyday speech as “adieu” was.

3 Nephi Chapter 9 : 18

I am the light and the life of the world. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.

Please note that “Alpha” is the first letter in the Greek alphabet. And “Omega” is the last letter in the Greek alphabet.

THEN a translation is given: “the beginning and the end.”

This is supposedly the 3rd book of Nephi, HOW did the ancient Nephites know ANY GREEK?

 

[TheosisM]

I wonder why their supposed god would allow such a supposedly important book to become a mish mash of varying languages and modes of speech.

The Bible has Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, and various modes of speech.

How did the Greek words “alpha” and “omega” get into the Book of Mormon?

I suppose “alpha” and “omega” were as commonly used in ordinary everyday speech as “adieu” was.

Please note that “Alpha” is the first letter in the Greek alphabet. And “Omega” is the last letter in the Greek alphabet.

THEN a translation is given: “the beginning and the end.”

This is supposedly the 3rd book of Nephi, HOW did the ancient Nephites know ANY GREEK?

Who said that Mormons believe that the Nephites knew Greek? One must understand what it means for something to be a “translation”. Having “alpha and omega” followed by a “translation” (this is more of an interpretation, since “alpha” does not mean “beginning” in English, nor does “omega” mean “end” in English) does not mean that “alpha and omega” were on the alleged plates. They are still translations and/or interpretations of what was allegedly on the plates, along with all the English words. It certainly is odd that one focuses on the words “adieu” and “alpha and omega”, when most of the Book is in English. Therefore, if a valid question is “how did the ancient Nephites know any Greek?”, another valid question is “how did the ancient Nephites know any English”. The same goes for the Bible.

 

[Zundrah]

What lies and hypocrisy? Now you are being taught that the catholic church is the only true religion. I see no difference. When catholics leave their faith, they also see lies and hypocrisy in their former faith, that is why they left. Lets look at germany where many catholics are contemplating leaving their faith because of what they perceive to be lies and hypocrisy. It is a human reaction when disappointment settles in.

Whyme, I have spoken to you in the past. I think you were either mormon or Catholic or both.

Anyway, the Catholic Church does not believe itself to be the only true “religion” as you put it. Protestants may have strange and odd doctrines at times but ultimately the message of Christ is known to them. The Church believes that protestants can also recieved salvation outside of the CC. The Catholic Church isn’t really as strict as you may think.

 

[why_me]

Whyme, I have spoken to you in the past. I think you were either mormon or Catholic or both.

Anyway, the Catholic Church does not believe itself to be the only true “religion” as you put it. Protestants may have strange and odd doctrines at times but ultimately the message of Christ is known to them. The Church believes that protestants can also recieved salvation outside of the CC. The Catholic Church isn’t really as strict as you may think.

The catholic church does not believe itself to be the only true church? I think that you got that wrong. And what is the message of christ that the mormons do not have?

 

[chris2009]

Have any of you guys ever read the Book of Mormon?

I have the book of Mormon at home and I often read it too. Have you ever read it, if so then how did you get it?

It is called the book of Mormon because it was a guy called Mormon who put all the books together and collectively made one book out of it.

That’s a bit like calling the bible the book of John, or the book of Peter, or what ever…

Why wasn’t it given a proper decent name?

Ummmm… Do you know how the Bible was put together? Have you forgotten or do you not know?

The books of the Bible were written over thousands of years and were originally individual books like “The Gospel According to St John” and “The First Epistle General of Peter”, etc written on paprus scrolls. To make a copy, they had to pain-stakingly copy each word by hand to another scroll. Bible comes from the Greek word “Biblia” meaning “books”. It was made up of many books. It wasn’t until much later that it became known as “The Book”.

The Bible is the stick of Judah (written by the Jews or descendants of Judah). The Book of Mormon is the stick of Joseph (written by the descendants of Joseph). Don’t forget, Judah and Joseph were the lead tribes in ancient Israel. Together they both testify that Jesus is the Christ.

 

[chris2009]

How did the Greek words “alpha” and “omega” get into the Book of Mormon?

I suppose “alpha” and “omega” were as commonly used in ordinary everyday speech as “adieu” was.

Quote:
3 Nephi Chapter 9 : 18
I am the light and the life of the world. I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.

Please note that “Alpha” is the first letter in the Greek alphabet. And “Omega” is the last letter in the Greek alphabet.

THEN a translation is given: “the beginning and the end.”

This is supposedly the 3rd book of Nephi, HOW did the ancient Nephites know ANY GREEK?

This arguement of how did the ancient Nephites know French or Greek makes me laugh. HOW did the ancient Nephites know ANY ENGLISH also? Duh…

The Lord’s translation of what words He felt we needed best were used. How many different translations are there of the Bible? Languages don’t always directly translate. There is no need to apologize for the Book of Mormon. It can hold it’s own weight against the critics.